The mismatch between twentyfirst-century forensic evidence and our antiquated criminal justice system

Southern California Law Review

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 633-672

  Murphy, Erin ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904961218     PISSN: 00383910     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. Katherine Q. Seelye, William K. Rashbaum & Michael Cooper, 2nd Bombing Suspect Caught After Frenzied Hunt Paralyzes Boston, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 20, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html
2. Globe Staff, 102 Hours in Pursuit of Marathon Suspects, BOS. GLOBE (Apr. 28, 2013), http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/28/bombreconstruct/ VbSZhzHm35yR88EVmVdbDM/story.html.
3. Eric Lichtblau, More Demands on Cell Carriers in Surveillance, N.Y. TIMES (July 8, 2012), .http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick- in-requests-to-aidsurveillance.html?pagewanted=all&-r=0.
4. User Data Requests, GOOGLE TRANSPARENCY REP., http://www.google.com/ transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/?metric=targets (last visited Feb. 15, 2014).
5. Declan McCullagh, Apple Deluged by Police Demands to Decrypt iPhones, CNET (May 10, 2013),http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578-3-57583843-38/apple-deluged- bypolice-demands-to-decrypt-iphones/.
6. National DNA Index Statistics, FED. BUREAU INVESTIGATION, http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-statistics (last visited Feb. 15, 2014).
7. Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1980 (2013)
8. CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN, PRIVACY AT RISK 169-80, 201-03 (2007)
9. Orin S. Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 MICH. L. REV. 801, 805, 857-87 (2004)
10. Katherine J. Strandburg, Home, Home on the Web and Other Fourth Amendment Implications of Technosocial Change, 70 MD. L. REV. 614, 622, 650-79 (2011)
11. Erin Murphy, The Politics of Privacy in the Criminal Justice System: Information Disclosure, the Fourth Amendment, and Statutory Law Enforcement Exemptions, 111 MICH. L. REV. 485 (2013)
12. Erin Murphy, The Case Against the Case for Third-Party Doctrine: A Response to Epstein and Kerr, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1239 (2009)
13. Erin Murphy, Paradigms of Restraint, 57 DUKE L.J. 1321 (2008)
14. Erin Murphy, The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence, 95 CALIF. L. REV. 721, 726-31 (2007).
15. Ian Herbert, Where We Are with Location Tracking: A Look at the Current Technology and the Implications on Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, 16 BERKELEY J. CRIM. L. 442, 469-76 (2011)
16. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 186-89 (1997)
17. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988).
18. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982)
19. Know the Cases: Larry Youngblood, INNOCENCE PROJECT, http://www. innocenceproject.org/Content/Larry-Youngblood.php
20. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 52.
21. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)
22. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
23. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959)
24. Cynthia E. Jones, Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation of Biological Evidence Under Innocence Protection Statutes, 42 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1239, 1246, 1247 n.43 (2005)
25. Guzman v. State, 868 So. 2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003)
26. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 55 (discussing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
27. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)
28. Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 545-46, 548 (2004).
29. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58 n.6 (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 486 (1984)
30. JOSEPH PETERSON ET AL., THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS 8 (2010), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/grants/231977.pdf
31. TOM MCEWEN, THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 48 (2011), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ grants/236474.pdf (reporting similarly low rates of collection, submission, and analysis).
32. KEVIN J. STROM ET AL., THE 2007 SURVEY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EVIDENCE PROCESSING § 3-2 (2009), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ grants/228415.pdf
33. JOHN K. ROMAN ET AL., URBAN INST., THE DNA FIELD EXPERIMENT: COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF DNA IN THE INVESTIGATION OF HIGHVOLUME CRIMES 4 (2008), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411697-dna- field-experiment.pdf
34. Simon A. Cole & Rachel Dioso-Villa, CSI and Its Effects: Media, Juries, and the Burden of Proof, 41 NEW ENG. L. REV. 435, 441-42 (2007)
35. Know the Cases: Cody Davis, INNOCENCE PROJECT, http://www. innocenceproject.org/Content/Cody-Davis.php (last visited Feb. 15, 2014).
36. Norman C. Bay, Old Blood, Bad Blood, and Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence, and the Limits of Bad Faith, 86 WASH. U. L. REV. 241, 242, 311 (2008)
37. Daniel Givelber, Meaningless Acquittals, Meaningful Convictions: Do We Reliably Acquit the Innocent?, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 1317, 1376-77 (1997)
38. Innocence Protection Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (2012)
39. Compare FED. R. CRIM. P. 16
40. FED. R. CIV. P. 26
41. John G. Douglass, Balancing Hearsay and Criminal Discovery, 68 FORDHAM L. REV. 2097 (2000)
42. H. Lee Sarokin & William E. Zuckerman, Presumed Innocent? Restrictions on Criminal Discovery in Federal Court Belie This Presumption, 43 RUTGERS L. REV. 1089 (1991)
43. Jenny Roberts, Too Little, Too Late: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, the Duty to Investigate, and Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases, 31 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1097, 1098-99 (2004)
44. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002)
45. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
46. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 (1972).
47. 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (2012)
48. FED R. CRIM. P. 16.
49. FED R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(1)(E)-(G)
50. FED R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(1)(E)-(F)
51. Bennett L. Gershman, Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play, 57 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 531, 531 (2007)
52. United States v. Olsen, 737 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2013)
53. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 462 (1996)
54. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A), (C)
55. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)
56. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(i)
57. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(4)
58. John G. Douglass, Fatal Attraction? The Uneasy Courtship of Brady and Plea Bargaining, 50 EMORY L.J. 437, 453-54 (2001)
59. Ethan Bronner, Lawyers, Saying DNA Cleared Inmate, Pursue Access to DNA Data, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 3, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/us/lawyers- saying-dna-cleared-inmatepursue-access-to-data.html?-r=0
60. Pope v. Commonwealth, 729 S.E.2d 751, 767 (Va. Ct. App. 2012)
61. Erin Murphy, Inferences, Arguments, and Second Generation Forensic Evidence, 59 HASTINGS L.J. 1047, 1050-54 (2008)
62. Rachel Gray, City Police Embrace Tech with CopDots, MARIETTA DAILY J. (Nov. 17, 2013), http://mdjonline.com/view/full-story/24070101/article-City- police-embrace-tech-with-CopDots?
63. NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NAT'L ACADS., STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 183-91 (2009)
64. Jennifer L. Mnookin et al., The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences, 58 UCLA L. REV. 725, 744-60 (2011)
65. Jennifer E. Laurin, Remapping the Path Forward: Toward a Systemic View of Forensic Science Reform and Oversight, 91 TEX. L. REV. 1051, 1111-12 (2013)
66. United States v. O'Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14, 23 (D.D.C. 2008)
67. Joseph Goldstein, Mishandling of DNA Evidence Is Found in Over 50 Cases at Crime Lab, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 31, 2013), found-in-new-york-city-crime-lab.html? adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1382262162- RLHKra0M2jIVHpFUi7Scqw
68. Technical Manuals, N.Y.C. OFF. CHIEF MED. EXAMINER,http://www.nyc.gov/ html/ocme/html/fbio/Manuals.shtml
69. N.Y.C., N.Y., ADMIN. CODE §§ 17-207, 17-208
70. N.Y.C., N.Y., ADMIN. CODE §§ 17-207, 17-208 (adopted Sept. 12, 2013); Chester Soria, Council Approves New Oversight of Medical Examiner's Office, GOTHAM GAZETTE (Sept. 13, 2013),http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/ government/4580-council-approves-new-oversight-of.medical-examiners-office
71. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1963)
72. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 (1985)
73. Jennifer M. Allen, Free for All a Free for All: The Supreme Court's Abdication of Duty in Failing to Establish Standards for Indigent Defense, 27 LAW & INEQ. 365, 392-98 (2009)
74. Ake, 470 U.S. at 74
75. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)
76. Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 445 (1992)
77. Paul C. Giannelli, Ake v. Oklahoma: The Right to Expert Assistance in a Post-Daubert, Pos -DNA World, 89 CORNELL L. REV. 1305, 1364-65 (2004)
78. Ake, 470 U.S. at 79
79. Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1981).
80. FORENSIC RESOURCES: N.C. OFF. INDIGENT DEF. SERVICES, http://www.ncids.com/forensic/
81. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 592-95 (1993
82. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
83. Contact Us, FORENSIC RESOURCES: N.C. OFF. INDIGENT DEF. SERVICES, http://www.ncids.com/forensic/contact.shtml (last visited Feb. 15, 2014)
84. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11 (2009).
85. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 2710 (2011).
86. Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221, 2227-28 (2012).
87. David Alan Sklansky, Hearsay's Last Hurrah, 2009 SUP. CT. REV. 1, 7
88. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 54-56, 68 (2004).
89. William C. Thompson, Forensic DNA Evidence: The Myth of Infallibility, in GENETIC EXPLANATIONS: SENSE AND NONSENSE 227 (Sheldon Krimsky & Jeremy Gruber eds., 2013)
90. DAVID L. FAIGMAN ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY § 31:15 (2012)
91. Erin Murphy, Databases, Doctrine & Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 37 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 803, 821 (2010)
92. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 137-38 (2009)
93. Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1513-14 (2012)
94. Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1979-80 (2013)
95. Restaurant Inspection Results (Letter Grades), N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE, http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/services/restaurant- inspection.shtml
96. LINDSEY DEVERS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, PLEA AND CHARGE BARGAINING, RESEARCH SUMMARY 1 (2011),https://www.bja.gov/Publications/ PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf.
97. Robert Hardaway, Dustin D. Berger & Andrea Defield, E-Discovery's Threat to Civil Litigation: Reevaluting Rule 26 for the Digital Age, 63 RUTGERS L. REV. 521, 523 (2011)
98. generally Discovery and Access to Evidence, 42 GEO. L.J. ANN. REV. CRIM. PROC. 370, 392-96 (2013)
99. People v. Gill, 965 N.Y.S.2d 329, 331-32 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2013)
100. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1391 (2012)
101. Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012)
102. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 368-69 (2010)
103. Jennifer L. Mnookin, Expert Evidence, Partisanship, and Epistemic Competence, 73 BROOK. L. REV. 1009, 1020 (2008)
104. Sara Gordon, Through the Eyes of Jurors: The Use of Schemas in the Application of "Plain-Language" Jury Instructions, 64 HASTINGS L.J. 643, 645 n.3
105. FED. R. EVID. 611
106. Frances P. Kao et al., Into the Hot Tub . . . A Practical Guide to Alternative Expert Witness Procedures in International Arbitration, 44 INT'L LAW. 1035, 1037-38 (2010)
107. Peter Heerey, Recent Australian Developments, 23 CIV. JUST. Q. 386, 390-91 (2004).
108. Megan A. Yarnall, Comment, Dueling Scientific Experts: Is Australia's Hot Tub Method a Viable Solution for the American Judiciary?, 88 OR. L. REV. 311, 323-24 (2009)
109. Brandon L. Garrett & Peter J. Neufeld, Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, 95 VA. L. REV. 1, 2 (2009)
110. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 454 (1966)
111. CAL. JURY INSTR.-CRIM. § 2.90 (West 2014)
112. Andrea Roth, Defying DNA: Rethinking the Role of the Jury in an Age of Scientific Proof ofInnocence, 93 B.U. L. REV. 1643, 1644 (2013)
113. Berry v. Chaplin, 169 P.2d 442, 450 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1946)
114. Dist. Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 73-75 (2009)
115. Aviva Orenstein, Facing the Unfaceable: Dealing with Prosecutorial Denial in Postconviction Cases of Actual Innocence, 48 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 401 (2011)
116. House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 536-37 (2006
117. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993)
118. Brandon L. Garrett, Claiming Innocence, 92 MINN. L. REV. 1629, 1635-36 (2008)
119. Bruce A. Green & Ellen Yaroshefsky, Prosecutorial Discretion and Post-Conviction Evidence of Innocence, 6 OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. 467, 484-85 (2009)
120. Caitlin Plummer & Imran Syed, "Shiftedz Science" and Post-Conviction Relief, 8 STAN. J. C.R. & C.L. 259, 279 (2012)
121. Jack Nicas, Flawed Evidence Under a Microscope, WALL ST. J. (July 18, 2013), http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB10001424127887324263404578614161262653152
122. Old Arson Cases in Texas Being Reviewed by New Panel, INS. J. (Oct. 23, 2013), http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2013/10/23/309026.htm
123. Christopher Onstott, Judicial Notice and the Law's "Scientific" Search for Truth, 40 AKRON L. REV. 465, 487-91 (2007)
124. Jessica Gabel & Margaret Wilkinson, "Good" Science Gone Bad: How the Criminal Justice System Can Redress the Impact of Flawed Forensics, 59 HASTINGS L.J. 1001, 1021 (2008)
125. Brandon L. Garrett, Essay, DNA and Due Process, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 2919,2921 (2010)
126. About Us, TEX. FORENSIC SCI. COMMISSION, http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/ about/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2014)
127. Myrna S. Raeder, Postconviction Claims of Innocence, CRIM. JUST., Fall 2009, at 14, 25
128. TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 11.073 (West 2014)
129. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-112-201 (West 2014)
130. Han Tak Lee v. Glunt, 667 F.3d 397, 407-08 (3d Cir. 2012)